HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Miscellaneous NHL Talk Part VIII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-29-2013, 12:22 PM
  #551
sobrien
RAFFLCOPTER
 
sobrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 8,387
vCash: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I don't know why people are having problems understanding what I am saying. I don't think I could be any clearer. I AM NOT SAYING TRADE GUS AND KEEP MEZ. I AM SAYING TWO THINGS: 1) IF MEZ AND GUS ARE BOTH HERE AND THE CHOICE TO PLAY ONE OVER THE OTHER COMES UP, I WOULD PLAY MEZ BECAUSE WHEN HEALTHY HE IS THE BETTER PLAYER; AND 2) IF GUS WERE TO BE TRADED IN A PATRICK SHARP-TYPE SITUATION (I.E. NO ROOM FOR HIM HERE SO THEY ARE TRADING HIM TO DO HIM A FAVOR) I WOULDN'T BE TOO BROKEN UP BECAUSE I THINK GUS IS OVERRATED AROUND HERE.

Let me just ask this; if Mez isn't traded, how are you getting under the Cap for opening night?

sobrien is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:26 PM
  #552
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
Healthy Meszaros may or may not be the better defender than Gustafsson at this point, but I have my doubts that any difference is significant enough to warrant a) carrying his salary on a cap-bumping team
The all caps didn't get it across that I am not saying I want to keep Mez?

Quote:
and b) giving a serious shot to the player who can arguably get better as he gains experience.
I'm not too sure that I agree with that for Gus or any player really. If you have a better player on your roster, you play him. If that weren't the case, McGinn, Akeson, Holmstrom, Straka, etc should all be playing over Rinaldo, Talbot, Hall, Gagne if he re-signed, etc. The young guys can bring pretty much the same thing to the table or at least should be able to if given the chance. McGinn could bring what Rinaldo brings to a certain degree. Holmstrom could bring what Hall and Talbot bring if given the chance. Akseon, Straka, and others could bring what Gagne were to bring if given the chance. But it doesn't work that way (unless you are in a rebuild phase, which I don't think the Flyers are). You play your best players.

If Mez comes to camp and is still hurts or his injury has really hindered his play and Gus comes out on fire, then Gus plays. To me it is usually the guy with less experience that has to do the proving, not the other way around.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:28 PM
  #553
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by sobrien View Post
Let me just ask this; if Mez isn't traded, how are you getting under the Cap for opening night?


Trade him...you know, like I have been ****ING saying!

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:40 PM
  #554
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 62,545
vCash: 500
Oh, and while we're at it, Leighton was still far more to blame than Richards or Carter. Leighton was easily the worst player on the team. Richards and Carter didn't singlehandedly lose games for the team like Leighton did.

__________________
Saturday night, I like to raise a little harm. I'll sleep when I'm dead.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:46 PM
  #555
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Oh, and while we're at it, Leighton was still far more to blame than Richards or Carter. Leighton was easily the worst player on the team. Richards and Carter didn't singlehandedly lose games for the team like Leighton did.
Ok, I guess I will concede the point then. Primary scoring doesn't have to show up, especially in the Cup Finals.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:52 PM
  #556
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 62,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok, I guess I will concede the point then. Primary scoring doesn't have to show up, especially in the Cup Finals.
Good choice.

Secondary scoring did the job. That's what's nice about having more than one line. There is no secondary goaltending. If your starting goalie is the worst player on the team by a longshot you would need to be the 80s Oilers to win.

Richards redeemed himself by playing solid defense (preventing goals is important) and Carter had broken feet. The rest of the team easily stepped up and filled the gaps, except Leighton. What is Leighton's excuse for being a slob?

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:55 PM
  #557
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Good choice.

Secondary scoring did the job. That's what's nice about having more than one line. There is no secondary goaltending. If your starting goalie is the worst player on the team by a longshot you would need to be the 80s Oilers to win.
Or perhaps you could use a goal or two more from your two best offensive players who had an undeniably bad offensive series where there were three one goal losses. Nah. That wouldn't have helped....

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 12:56 PM
  #558
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 62,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Or perhaps you could use a goal or two more from your two best offensive players who had an undeniably bad offensive series where there were three one goal losses. Nah. That wouldn't have helped....
No, they REALLY didn't need to score any more goals. They scored enough. I don't know how you don't understand that, it's simple counting. That wasn't the issue. The issue was the worst starting goalie the SC Finals has ever seen.

Richards prevented goals with defense. Others filled in for his offense. Carter had broken feet. Others filled in for his offense. Others can't really fill in for garbage goaltending.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:03 PM
  #559
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
No, they REALLY didn't need to score any more goals. They scored enough. I don't know how you don't understand that, it's simple counting. That wasn't the issue. The issue was the worst starting goalie the SC Finals has ever seen.

Richards prevented goals with defense. Others filled in for his offense. Carter had broken feet. Others filled in for his offense. Others can't really fill in for garbage goaltending.
Ok, I'll have to keep this mind. Top offensive players are excused from showing up as long other people step up. A very interesting sentiment, especially when it occurs in the Cup Finals...you know...usually where you need your best players to be your best players in order to win.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:04 PM
  #560
flyershockey
Registered User
 
flyershockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
No, they REALLY didn't need to score any more goals. They scored enough. I don't know how you don't understand that, it's simple counting. That wasn't the issue. The issue was the worst starting goalie the SC Finals has ever seen.

Richards prevented goals with defense. Others filled in for his offense. Carter had broken feet. Others filled in for his offense. Others can't really fill in for garbage goaltending.
I'd say not having a respectable third pairing was just as much to blame as bad goaltending. Pronger-Carle and Coburn-Timonen played 95% of the series because Krajicek-Parent both handled the puck like a grenade and couldn't even be trusted at even strength.

Richards was charged with shutting down Toews, which he did. Carter was hurt so we couldn't really expect him to be a force, despite the fact that I still hate him for chest sniping Niemi at the end of Game 6.

flyershockey is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:11 PM
  #561
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 62,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok, I'll have to keep this mind. Top offensive players are excused from showing up as long other people step up. A very interesting sentiment, especially when it occurs in the Cup Finals...you know...usually where you need your best players to be your best players in order to win.

Richards still played awesome defense. Preventing goals is important. Carter had broken feet, which I hear can affect one's athletic performance. It's not like either of them were hopeless voids of garbage like Leighton was. Leighton has ZERO excuse, and Homer has even less for re-signing that turdpile with the intention of rolling with him the following season. I don't even know how you do that on purpose, I'm half convinced it was an accident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
I'd say not having a respectable third pairing was just as much to blame as bad goaltending. Pronger-Carle and Coburn-Timonen played 95% of the series because Krajicek-Parent both handled the puck like a grenade and couldn't even be trusted at even strength.

Richards was charged with shutting down Toews, which he did. Carter was hurt so we couldn't really expect him to be a force, despite the fact that I still hate him for chest sniping Niemi at the end of Game 6.
Well, Leighton is a big part of why the 3rd pairing was such an issue. He was utterly incapable of playing behind anything but our top 4, and he was barely even capable of that. Really, he wasn't. With a real goalie the 3rd pairing is much less of an issue. Their biggest flaw was that they weren't capable of babysitting Leighton, and Leighton had zero chance of bailing them out.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:25 PM
  #562
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Flyerfan4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 18,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Leighton has ZERO excuse,

i gotta disagree with you here^^^

Leighton is what he is.. as he was called before "lightning in a bottle"..

was that SCF game winning goal a backbreaker, sure it was.

but lets not pretend Leighton was Lundquist giving up the softest goal in history at the worst possible time.

im still a fan of Leighton (mostly for reigniting my Flyers flame love of hockey), but even i can sit back now and realize that goal was a result of him simply coming back to earth.

Flyerfan4life is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:26 PM
  #563
flyershockey
Registered User
 
flyershockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post


Well, Leighton is a big part of why the 3rd pairing was such an issue. He was utterly incapable of playing behind anything but our top 4, and he was barely even capable of that. Really, he wasn't. With a real goalie the 3rd pairing is much less of an issue. Their biggest flaw was that they weren't capable of babysitting Leighton, and Leighton had zero chance of bailing them out.
I'm not pardoning Leighton of any blame for his crappy play, but the third pair was an issue, and not just because they didn't have a goalie to bail them out. It was clear when watching them, that the moment was too big for them. It's no surprise to see both guys are out of the league and don't appear to have any chance at getting back to that level.

flyershockey is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:37 PM
  #564
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 62,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
I'm not pardoning Leighton of any blame for his crappy play, but the third pair was an issue, and not just because they didn't have a goalie to bail them out. It was clear when watching them, that the moment was too big for them. It's no surprise to see both guys are out of the league and don't appear to have any chance at getting back to that level.
I'm not saying they were a non-issue, but that their lack of skill was made into a much bigger problem than it should have been because of the situation in net.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 01:41 PM
  #565
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan4life View Post
i gotta disagree with you here^^^

Leighton is what he is.. as he was called before "lightning in a bottle"..

was that SCF game winning goal a backbreaker, sure it was.

but lets not pretend Leighton was Lundquist giving up the softest goal in history at the worst possible time.

im still a fan of Leighton (mostly for reigniting my Flyers flame love of hockey), but even i can sit back now and realize that goal was a result of him simply coming back to earth.
Leighton wasn't coming back down to earth. He always sucked, he was made to look better by a strong top 4 defense and some great two way forwards.

And what does it matter if it's Lundqvist is in net or an ECHL goalie is? Trust me no one expect Leighton to perform like a Lundqvist however we all expected him to be able to make what should have been a simple save from a low shot at a terrible angle.

I don't even get how this is still being discussed. Leighton is primarily to blame for the cup loss, if you can't see that I don't know what to say.

FlyersFan61290 is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 02:41 PM
  #566
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Here's the way I look at it (which I know will not be popular). Maybe I haven't been clear enough or not explaining it well enough so let me try to simplify it.

Leighton sucked. No question. He was a part of the overall problem that led to losing the Cup. Team's rely on their goalies in the playoffs and he **** the bed. Big time. It is not too much to expect that a goalie in the SCF will play like at least an average NHL goalie. Leighton did not do this.Improved play from Leighton, even a slight improvement, very well may have made the Flyers Cup Champions in 2010.

The Flyers two best offensive players were Richards and Carter. The team relied on the two all year to get them to the playoffs (and Richards throughout the playoffs). I don't think it is arguably disputed that the two were not the Flyers two best offensive players, and their primary scoring. When it came crunch time, whatever the reasons were (Richards being in a defensive role...which he was all year and all playoffs anyway but still managed to lead the team in scoring; or Carter being injured), they did not produce. The Flyers lost four games that series, three by one goal (including one in OT). The two were part of the problem as to why the team didn't win. A slightly improved performance by Carter and Richards (or really even just one or the other) very well may have made this team a Cup Champion in 2010.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 02:47 PM
  #567
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 62,545
vCash: 500
Or, a slightly improved performance by Leighton means he isn't allowing such horrible goals. He was easily worse than either one of them.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 02:49 PM
  #568
mja
Negative Creep
 
mja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,092
vCash: 500
Richards and Carter may have been neutralized offensively in the series, but Leighton let in the worst goal in the history of the franchise, which was just the rotten cherry on top of the **** sundae that was his entire body of work in the finals.

There's no way to even compare the two. It's idiotic to even attempt it.

mja is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:08 PM
  #569
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Or, a slightly improved performance by Leighton means he isn't allowing such horrible goals. He was easily worse than either one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mja View Post
Richards and Carter may have been neutralized offensively in the series, but Leighton let in the worst goal in the history of the franchise, which was just the rotten cherry on top of the **** sundae that was his entire body of work in the finals.

There's no way to even compare the two. It's idiotic to even attempt it.
So what you are both telling me is that a slightly improved offensive performance from Richards and Carter (let's say, a goal more each) would not have had a similar impact to improved performance by Leighton (let's say, two more saves). If that is the case, and you are in fact telling me that Leighton's play would have had a bigger impact, then I would be interested hearing the explanation. If you are not saying that, and you are agreeing with me that two more goals would have had the same impact as two more saves, but someone Leighton is more to blame because his impact, albeit the same, is more to blame, I would also like to hear why.

And please don't just say "because other players scored!" That isn't a great argument, no matter how many times you repeat it. Your best players need to be your best players to win the Cup. It's as simple as that. It isn't too much to expect your best offensive players to produce, just like it isn't too much to expect your goalie to play well in net. I posted it a while back, but if you look to the most recent Cup losers dating back to the Flyers (I didn't go any further but I wager it would be the same or similar), all of their best players were shut down in the Finals (the Sedins, Marchand and Horton (though Kreijci put up respectable numbers and I really am not sure who the best offensive guys on Boston were), Kovalchuk and Parise, Carter and Richards).

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:09 PM
  #570
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,864
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
And once again, keep in mind that I am NOT saying that Leighton is without blame or played well or anything along those lines. He **** the bed in net, Carter/Richards **** the bed offensively.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:13 PM
  #571
Jray42
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 4,543
vCash: 50
I think the key here is, although Leighton's performance sucked worse than that of Richards and Carter, Leighton didn't necessarily play below his-level, per se. His level of suckitude was to be expected, as he was never good enough to make anyone believe he could be decent, and as a result, played up to his (sucky) standards. Could he have played better? Maybe. But let's not act like his Finals performance was an outlier, he had always sucked that bad. It's not Leighton's fault he sucks, he shouldn't have been the starting goaltender on a Stanley Cup finals team to begin with (I still despise Leighton till this day, fyi.)

Richards and Carter didn't suck nearly as bad, but we expected them to be the key cogs to lead us to victory. Although Richards played good defensively, and Carter played with a broken foot, they both played below their normal "level", per se. We needed and expected them to produce more offensively, and they didn't. Leighton sucked, he was never supposed to play better necessarily, whereas Richards and Carter were supposed to be our best players.

Leighton sucked much worse than Richards or Carter, that's certain, Leighton played a much bigger role in why we didn't win the cup that year, but all I am saying is that all Richards and Carter needed to do was play like themselves, or up to the levels they were capable of/ play normal, for lack of a better term. Leighton would have needed to play much better than any level he had ever been capable of in order to have played decent enough for us to win.

Jray42 is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:17 PM
  #572
The Couturier Effect
Registered User
 
The Couturier Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 500
Like I said earlier, if Leighton plays a tiny bit better in game 1, the Flyers would have won that game. That means the Flyers would have been up 3-1 going back to Chicago for game 5 with three chances to put the series away. (assuming games 2,3, and 4 are the same)

It's not like the Flyers relied on Carter and Richards for all their goals. When they couldn't produce, other players stepped up and scored (Giroux, Leino, Briere, Hartnell, etc.). The Flyers scored enough goals to win that series. Leighton couldn't come up with saves when we needed them.

The Couturier Effect is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:36 PM
  #573
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 62,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
So what you are both telling me is that a slightly improved offensive performance from Richards and Carter (let's say, a goal more each) would not have had a similar impact to improved performance by Leighton (let's say, two more saves). If that is the case, and you are in fact telling me that Leighton's play would have had a bigger impact, then I would be interested hearing the explanation. If you are not saying that, and you are agreeing with me that two more goals would have had the same impact as two more saves, but someone Leighton is more to blame because his impact, albeit the same, is more to blame, I would also like to hear why.

And please don't just say "because other players scored!" That isn't a great argument, no matter how many times you repeat it. Your best players need to be your best players to win the Cup. It's as simple as that. It isn't too much to expect your best offensive players to produce, just like it isn't too much to expect your goalie to play well in net. I posted it a while back, but if you look to the most recent Cup losers dating back to the Flyers (I didn't go any further but I wager it would be the same or similar), all of their best players were shut down in the Finals (the Sedins, Marchand and Horton (though Kreijci put up respectable numbers and I really am not sure who the best offensive guys on Boston were), Kovalchuk and Parise, Carter and Richards).
You keep coming back to Carter and Richards. Carter had a broken foot, so I don't know how you can blame him. Richards shut down Toews, and it's not his fault Lavi didn't make an adjustment. Richards did not have a bad Finals. Leighton had a bad finals.

It doesn't matter how good or bad your best players are if you have the worst starting goaltender in the long history of the Stanley Cup Finals, and he plays accordingly.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
07-29-2013, 03:37 PM
  #574
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
The only reason it is up for debate is because Gus seems to be one of those players that HF boards gets a hard-on for (see: people calling him a top four defender after 60 mediocre NHL games).
Based on his numbers so far, he's a 30-point defenseman when given adequate EV and PP time. His production per offensive minute suggest this fact. He's also at the very least in the discussion with Meszaros defensively if not better. He doesn't hit as much as Meszaros, and he gives up some size. Still he's demonstrated that he's hardly a pushover along the boards and plays well positionally in eyeball tests. Advanced statistics back all of this up.

So, no this is not another "hard-on" HFboards player. You're thinking of Lauridsen. I haven't seen a single person claiming that Gustafsson having higher potential than he has. A top 4 PMD is what we're expecting, and based on all the evidence, it is what we're getting out of a 24-year-old. Meanwhile, people were penciling Lauridsen into the top 4 in place of Coburn. There's a significant difference there.

That said, even if you believe Meszaros to be a significantly better player than Gustafsson, which has been proven to be inaccurate, there are a slew of other factors involved:

1. ROLE/COST RATIO: whoever of the two is in the lineup will be playing third fiddle behind Timonen and Streit making their impact on the roster lesser. For the price, 1m trumps 4m for a 3rd pairing defenseman any day.
2. AGE. Gustafsson isn't a decade younger or anything, but he is younger enough for it to be a factor.
3. HEALTH. Gustafsson has had a minor injury here and there, but he's nowhere near the glass-man that Meszaros has become.
4. TEAM NEEDS. The Flyers have enough physical guys. Sure, Meszaros isn't a shut-down heavyweight like Schenn or Grossmann, but he's not the most finesse guy. With Timonen and Streit getting on in years, some youthful finesse on the back-end will go a long way.
5. DEVELOPMENT. Gustafsson's development has become a very important cog for the organization's continuity on the back-end leading into the developmental track of Morin, Hagg, and Gostisbehere. You don't want to stunt it.
6. LONG-TERM PLANS. Meszaros doesn't fit into the team's long-term plans. That's very clear. Sacrificing Gustafsson, who does, just to benefit Meszaros' value seems extremely counter-productive particularly when Gustafsson could use extended NHL experience before we need him in a much larger role next year.

There is no reason, absolutely none, to have Meszaros in the lineup for Gustafsson. None.

CS is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 04:52 PM
  #575
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan8828 View Post
Like I said earlier, if Leighton plays a tiny bit better in game 1, the Flyers would have won that game. That means the Flyers would have been up 3-1 going back to Chicago for game 5 with three chances to put the series away. (assuming games 2,3, and 4 are the same)

It's not like the Flyers relied on Carter and Richards for all their goals. When they couldn't produce, other players stepped up and scored (Giroux, Leino, Briere, Hartnell, etc.). The Flyers scored enough goals to win that series. Leighton couldn't come up with saves when we needed them.
A lot of revisionist history here.

Boucher let in the GWG in game 1.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.